he was the #4/5 in 2009 though, so unless QUALCOMP also takes "QUANTCOMP" into consideration before spitting out that number, I wouldn't say it was all that significant.

Huh? Ehrhoff has been a 21+ minute defenseman every season since 2007-08. It's literally impossible to be anything below a top 4 defenseman when you see that much ice time.

Quote:

- Why does Warwick get grouped in with Richardson, Stastny and Dahlen as "don't appear to be tough at all"?

I was talking about Richardson and Stastny only. They are the scoring wingers of the lines. I guess Warwick is something of a secondary scoring winger.

Quote:

yeah, he's tough. An elite puckwinner, not with his size, no. but that was poor terminology on your part, to be sure.

Actually, it was a misinterpretation on your part.

Quote:

have you read all the scouting reports on Erixon? He was not some talentless defensive waterbug. He had legitimate stick and puck skills. He was just an awful finisher. That's it. He doesn not kill his team's offensive ability - he just won't score goals. And those two things are not one and the same.

Erixon gets the puck in scoring position = as close to a guarantee that your team won't score a goal as there is. It really hurts the offensive upside of your third line when Eden Hall's defense doesn't have to respect the shot of one of the members of the line at all.

Quote:

Harris of the 1970s placed 8th in Selke voting once... that makes him as much of a "shutdown" player as a lot of MLDers, doesn't it?

It's actually 11th in voting according to HOH - you have him listed as 11th on his profile, so I assume this was an error. I guess I got the Harrises confused - the winger Harris is as good defensively as most RWs at this level (not as good as McKay though). It's the center version of Harris who isn't a shut down guy.

Quote:

Our 3rd line A BIT better defensively? There's only very modest defensive ability throughout your 3rd line (mainly because Kapanen actually played some D and because Sullivan is a shorthanded threat) but Erixon and Harris of the 70s are the two best defensive players on either 3rd line. And Harris of the 60s at least played a defensive role at times.

Sullivan and Pettersson are about as good defensively as the center version of Billy Harris. As I said above, I underestimated the defensive ability of the winger version of Harris. Your 3rd line wings are both better defensively than their Eden Hall counterparts. IMO, center is the most important defensive position on the ice, so the shut down ability of the line is still somewhat limited.

Quote:

What makes McKay a better defensive player than Harris of the 70s? And what makes him conclusively any better than Grier defensively? (FWIW, Grier, in 130 more games, has the same ES production rate as well, and I think he did it with lesser linemates, too)

Selke voting: Since we love our Selke votes here, McKay finished 9th in Selke voting despite never killing penalties. Considering how important penalty killing is for weak offensive players to get Selke recognition, that shows how great McKay was at even strength defense.

Contribution to team success as a checker: This is a much more traditional way to judge checkers. McKay was the right wing on the best checking line in the entire league for quite a few seasons. The line was generally XXX-Holik-McKay, with XXX often Sergei Nemchinov or someone similar. When the Devils stacked their checkers in the 2001 playoffs to play against linemates Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr, they moved John Madden to LW and kept McKay up there. The Madden-Holik-McKay line completely shut down the Lemieux/Jagr combo.

Quote:

Tippett is not "almost" as good as Erixon, as much as you'd like to think so. (addressed above)

Depends on how big of a gap you think there is between the top checkers in the league (as addressed above).

Quote:

Erixon, to my knowledge, didn't ever play with a "shutdown" center in real life. He even did some cleanup work for Pierre Larouche IIRC

.

I have no idea about the circumstances of Erixon, but generally teams that succeed in the playoffs (which Erixon's didn't) have at least one center with real shutdown abilities, something Regina does not have.

I really don't see this supposed physical gap that 70s thinks he has on the 4th lines. I'd rate their toughness something like this:

Mckay
Boutette Patey/Tucker
Grier Tippett

And of course, Eden Hall has the option of inserting Matt Cooke in the lineup if the series gets dirty. But I don't think it will - it's not like the Regina team is full of brutes or anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord

- Your 4th line is a defensive line and it's a good one... where is the energy? Where is the intimidation? Where is the agitation?

Obviously McKay was a real swashbuckler, but Patey and Tippett were pretty passive pure defensive players.

This is inaccurate. Patey was a very aggressive player who was quite annoying to play against:

Quote:

Larry was an annoying and antagonistic player to the other team. He was a ferocious checker, even in practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Patey

My strength was my skating. I was also fairly aggressive.

Patey collected 631 PIMs in 717 games.

Patey's aggression is why we selected him over the faster Todd Marchant for our checking center.

IMO, McKay is more intimidating than any of Regina's forwards.

And who says a team's "agitator" has to be a forward:

Quote:

(Garth) Butcher played an aggressive style and earned a reputation as a classic "needler" who distracted opponents or provoked them into taking penalties.6 In 1989, Gerard Gallant of the Detroit Red Wings was suspended five games for retaliating and deliberately attempting to injure Butcher.

Quote:

veteran agitator Garth Butcher

Quote:

He (Snepsts) noted that the Blues, especially Butcher, kept banging Probert In the playoffs until the guy began taking unwise penalties. "Butch is something else," Snepsts said. "When we were in Vancouver that one year, he threw the whole Calgary playoffs out of whack. He was yapping at their whole bench, and he drove (coach] XXX nuts. They were running out of their positions, trying to get Garth."

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord

Which line is going to go out there and cause a ruckus and get the momentum going in your team's direction when you need it? To be honest, I don't see three players in your starting lineup who can really be that kind of guy for you. I see McKay, and I see Cooke on the bench. This is a major gap in the makeup of Edan Hall, one that can be critical as the playoffs wear on... which they already have, considering this is the finals.

McKay, Patey, and Butcher. You were critical of the Butcher pick before, but now you see why we selected him - he performs the role you are asking for here.

Honestly, it's not like Grier was some kind of physical beast.

And of course, realistically Cooke probably will be dressed for a few games. It might actually be a viable strategy against Regina. Regina's PP is weak enough where taking runs against Regina players could be

Huh? Ehrhoff has been a 21+ minute defenseman every season since 2007-08. It's literally impossible to be anything below a top 4 defenseman when you see that much ice time.

I was talking about Richardson and Stastny only. They are the scoring wingers of the lines. I guess Warwick is something of a secondary scoring winger.

Actually, it was a misinterpretation on your part.

Erixon gets the puck in scoring position = as close to a guarantee that your team won't score a goal as there is. It really hurts the offensive upside of your third line when Eden Hall's defense doesn't have to respect the shot of one of the members of the line at all.

It's actually 11th in voting according to HOH - you have him listed as 11th on his profile, so I assume this was an error. I guess I got the Harrises confused - the winger Harris is as good defensively as most RWs at this level (not as good as McKay though). It's the center version of Harris who isn't a shut down guy.

Sullivan and Pettersson are about as good defensively as the center version of Billy Harris. As I said above, I underestimated the defensive ability of the winger version of Harris. Your 3rd line wings are both better defensively than their Eden Hall counterparts. IMO, center is the most important defensive position on the ice, so the shut down ability of the line is still somewhat limited.

Selke voting: Since we love our Selke votes here, McKay finished 9th in Selke voting despite never killing penalties. Considering how important penalty killing is for weak offensive players to get Selke recognition, that shows how great McKay was at even strength defense.

Contribution to team success as a checker: This is a much more traditional way to judge checkers. McKay was the right wing on the best checking line in the entire league for quite a few seasons. The line was generally XXX-Holik-McKay, with XXX often Sergei Nemchinov or someone similar. When the Devils stacked their checkers in the 2001 playoffs to play against linemates Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr, they moved John Madden to LW and kept McKay up there. The Madden-Holik-McKay line completely shut down the Lemieux/Jagr combo.

Depends on how big of a gap you think there is between the top checkers in the league (as addressed above).

.

I have no idea about the circumstances of Erixon, but generally teams that succeed in the playoffs (which Erixon's didn't) have at least one center with real shutdown abilities, something Regina does not have.

Erixon was centred by Ron Greschner in the 1985 playoffs and the 1986 season and playoffs. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether Greschner, normally an offensive defenceman, was a shutdown centre.

If you would actually partake in that side-discussion, we might get somewhere.

Okay, here we go.

Quote:

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think Seabrook has arguably peaked higher than Gibbs, but not definitely. drop Gibbs onto Chicago and he very well might be the #2.

Seabrook's place over Campbell as Chicago's #2 is determined partially by the fact that he has much better chemistry with Keith (the undisputed #1) than Campbell does. It's possible that Gibbs technically could be Chicago's #2, but it would depend on his chemistry with Keith, rather than how good he actually is. Considering the all-time great chemistry that Keith and Seabrook already have (in future ATDs, I wouldn't be surprised if they were drafted as partners), I doubt Gibbs would break in.

Quote:

Do you actually think this?

Do you actually think you've shown anything to indicate that Gibbs was better defensively at even strength than Brian Campbell?

Quote:

I agree he was playing over his head. Totally! It doesn't make him a worse player. But what did that make him? I don't think he was top-14 just by being a #1 in a 14-team league. I also don't think that the best defenseman of any team over .400 could be as bad as 40th in the league. Surely we can come to some sort of agreement on what those seasons mean!

Where he places in the league isn't the full issue, when the NHL of the 70s was much weaker than it is today. I think it's very plausible that a poor #1 in a 14 team league was about the 25th best player in the league. Then consider all the talent in Europe (mostly the USSR and CSSR but also Sweden) and the WHA (Al Hamilton, Paul Shmyr, Rick Ley, JC Tremblay, etc etc) and yes, I think it's very plausible that a poor #1 could be no better than the 40th best defenseman in the world.

Anyway, you asked how I would rank their seasons. It would be something like this:

1. The All-Time Great Seasons

Campbell's 2006-07 and 2007-08. These are the best two seasons of either player by a lot. As I said before, Campbell would be a #3 puck mover in the main draft if he had a full 10 year career of seasons like that (which he doesn't).

These two seasons are much better than anything either of them did in additional seasons. After those two seasons, it's more of a judgment call, but I'll try:

2. Additional Noteworthy Seasons:

Campbell 2008-09, Gibbs 71-72, Gibbs 72-73

These are the only additional seasons where these guys got non-trivial all-star votes.

Other solid seasons:

3. Campbell 2009-10 - co-#2 of an excellent team.

4. Gibbs's additional 3 seasons as a #1 on not terrible teams

5. Campbell 2005-06, Campbell 2010-11, Gibbs season as a #1 on a below average team without awful GA numbers

6. Gibbs 1973-74, 1977-78, 1978-79 when he was a #1 but also top 10 in the league in goals against.

I realize Campbell was a specialist in 2005-06, but it was an excellent season as a specialist and my personal judgment call is that I would take an excellent specialist over a terrible #1. Phil Housley and Sergei Gonchar spent much of their seasons as specialists, but they were excellent specialists. I think Housley is always drafted too early, but I would definitely take his seasons as an excellent specialist over someone who was a terrible #1.

And this is before you get into the playoffs, where Campbell's 2010 was better than anything Gibbs did. He was a key secondary contributor to winning the Cup playing the exact same role he's playing for Eden Hall now.

I have used my eyes in watching hockey, thank you very much. For about 18 years. And from what I've seen, the gap between the top defensive forwards is not that big - certainly much smaller than the gap between the top scoring forwards and top defensemen.

Now to get away from "I saw it so it must be true:" There's a reason defense-only forwards get paid less than top forwards and top defensemen, right? Because it's a lot easier to get a defensive forward who's almost as good.

Since you obviously need something to do, look at who finished top 10 in Selke voting the last few seasons and try to argue with a straight face that the guys who finished 3-5 were significantly better defensively than the guys who finished 6-10.

I think it's time Jarek left this up to the two GM's who are in this, he's made a big enough mess already. I'm enjoying the 70's/TDMM debate.

I have used my eyes in watching hockey, thank you very much. For about 18 years. And from what I've seen, the gap between the top defensive forwards is not that big - certainly much smaller than the gap between the top scoring forwards and top defensemen.

Now to get away from "I saw it so it must be true:" There's a reason defense-only forwards get paid less than top forwards and top defensemen, right? Because it's a lot easier to get a defensive forward who's almost as good.

Since you obviously need something to do, look at who finished top 10 in Selke voting the last few seasons and try to argue with a straight face that the guys who finished 3-5 were significantly better defensively than the guys who finished 6-10.

Except Erixon was top-10 for 5 seasons in Selke voting. Does being consistently in the top echelon of defensive forwards not count for something? Most guys in the MLD, unless I am mistaken, have had maybe 1 or 2 good Selke finishes.

And the reason that the best scorers get paid more is because good defense doesn't win games. If you had a team of Guy Carbonneaus or Bob Gaineys, you'd lose every game by 1 goal, but you'd still lose every game. The top scorers get paid so much because the goal of winning hockey games is to score more goals than your opponent. As well, I do agree that it is much harder to find an elite scorer than an elite defensive forward (whatever elite means, depending on era).

However, I think it's really funny that we're talking about "not big differences" between 3-10 in Selke finishes, with all the praise that's heaped upon guys like Datsyuk, Toews and Kesler. Yes, there is a difference. In this case, a significant difference. And Erixon did this 5 times (placing in the top-10). So, for 5 seasons, Erixon was considered one of the 10 best defensive forwards in the league. If that sort of consistency doesn't count for something, then why are we here?

And to answer your question, yes, I do think there is a substantial difference in the defensive impact of guys like Bergeron, Malholtra and Mike Richards as opposed to Claude Giroux, Brad Richards, Pascal Dupuis and Brandon Prust, just to name a few.

Except Erixon was top-10 for 5 seasons in Selke voting. Does being consistently in the top echelon of defensive forwards not count for something? Most guys in the MLD, unless I am mistaken, have had maybe 1 or 2 good Selke finishes.

And the reason that the best scorers get paid more is because good defense doesn't win games. If you had a team of Guy Carbonneaus or Bob Gaineys, you'd lose every game by 1 goal, but you'd still lose every game. The top scorers get paid so much because the goal of winning hockey games is to score more goals than your opponent. As well, I do agree that it is much harder to find an elite scorer than an elite defensive forward (whatever elite means, depending on era).

However, I think it's really funny that we're talking about "not big differences" between 3-10 in Selke finishes, with all the praise that's heaped upon guys like Datsyuk, Toews and Kesler. Yes, there is a difference. In this case, a significant difference. And Erixon did this 5 times (placing in the top-10). So, for 5 seasons, Erixon was considered one of the 10 best defensive forwards in the league. If that sort of consistency doesn't count for something, then why are we here?

And to answer your question, yes, I do think there is a substantial difference in the defensive impact of guys like Bergeron, Malholtra and Mike Richards as opposed to Claude Giroux, Brad Richards, Pascal Dupuis and Brandon Prust, just to name a few.

Because Eden Hall has much better personnel on the PP than Regina. Coaches coach, players play, and the advantage Eden Hall has in PP players is enormous. Believe me, I'm going to emphasize this again before the series is up.

In one of the few seasons Julien actually had decent powerplay personnel (2008-09), his team finished 4th in the league on the PP. Of course, that's besides the point, as I already indicated that John Muckler will be just as involved in team strategy as Claude Julien, and will likely take the role on the PP.

that sounds a bit like just glossing over the fact that some coaches are better and worse at one special team or the other.

games are still won at ES... roughly 80% of the game is played at ES.

Quote:

Serious question: How much better is the 3rd best defensive forward (as determined by the media) than the 9th best defensive forward (as determined by the media)? I really don't think the gap between the top checking forwards is that high - certainly not as high as the gap between the top scorers, which is why I never draft 3rd liners before 1st liners.

Once in awhile, there will be a generational defensive forward like Bob Gainey, but Erixon clearly isn't that. If he was, ATD canon would have him go in the main draft, considering the ATD was started by a group of GMs who grew up watching 80s (and 70s) hockey.

OK, first of all, this is not the ATD. just because Bob Gainey can't possibly be as valuable as Hooley Smith or Syd Howe doesn't mean Jan Erixon can't possibly be as valuable as Vincent Lukac or Wally Hergesheimer.

When I took Erixon, I saw him standing above all others available in his role, like no available scoring forward or defenseman could do. I 100% stand by that logic and by that pick. Erixon was the highest vote-getter among bottom-6 forwards, you know.

Quote:

Maybe it just means that Sargent was the big fish in a small pond - those North Stars teams weren't exactly stacked - certainly not like the recent San Jose Sharks or the President's Trophy winning Canucks.

You're right, it might mean what you want it to mean, and it might mean what I want it to mean. where does that leave us?

Quote:

Sargent certainly didn't have any years better than Ehrhoff's last 2 when he finished top 10 in Norris voting over a much larger talent pool and deserved it.

Don't be so certain of that! 42nd and 23rd don't quite fit the profile of a top-10 defensemen. that's only one piece of it of course. Maybe a quick refresher of what these votes mean is appropriate.

For Ehrhoff to place highly at all in norris voting, he has to get some votes. Every ballot has just 5 slots. there were 12 voters who saw Ehrhoff as a top-5 defenseman which is borderline insane, and there was one who saw him as 3rd, which is not really defensible. Similarly, the year before he even got a 2nd place vote.

Now this totally cuts both ways and affects Sargent, too. His three points in 1978 probably mean he got three 3rd-place votes. Someone had him ahead of three of Potvin, Park, Robinson, Salming and Lapointe. Crazy, hey? And likewise, in his similarly strong 1977 and 1979 seasons, he didn't show up in voting, but how do we know that a dozen voters didn't have 4th and 5th-place votes ready for them if their ballots were only that large? (If ballots were still three votes long, Ehrhoff would have received two votes the past two years combined, just saying)

The number of times these kinds of things happened and the degree to which they happened is where we get these mediocre (but very good by MLD standards) all-star and norris records from. (I'm not too concerned with pre-expansion for reasons you already described). We both realize that these votes don't just go to garbage players and they did something to deserve them, and we both also are careful to toss out embarrassingly low and insignificant totals, so please don't misinterpret this as saying it's garbage.

So how reliable is the information that tells us these were top-10 defensemen a combined three seasons? Somewhat. This is why I say don't be a slave to it. It's one piece of the puzzle. (IIRC, someone like sturm or HO made a good case about sub-top-5 d-men, it really should apply more to the ATD than the MLD, of course, as at this point we're just doing our best and "going with what we have")

So anyway, there are other pieces of the puzzle. There is icetime. There are written descriptions of their play. And there is the eye test, at least for Ehrhoff.

You'll disagree of course, but I do not see Ehrhoff as a top-10 defenseman in the NHL. he's very good of course, and it's great that he was a #1 in the regular season on a presiden't trophy winner. On the other hand, that team more or less had multiple "co-#1s. It's rare you see a team-leading TOI like he had in 2010, and even in 2011 it was well below average for a #1. So this is not quite as simple as saying Ehrhoff's seasons were better thanks to his Norris record, when there is evidence that should be considered just as compelling in Sargent's favour!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

Huh? Ehrhoff has been a 21+ minute defenseman every season since 2007-08. It's literally impossible to be anything below a top 4 defenseman when you see that much ice time.

That was me being lazy. I knew he was a 4 or 5 in 2009 because I posted it the day before, but it was not in the "past 50 posts" that show up at the bottom of the reply screen. I know in 2008 he was a #2, we've mentioned that enough. Having checked now, I can tell you he was a #4 in 2009, even with 21:14 played per game. (yeah, it was 2 seconds behind Blake, haha)

Quote:

It's actually 11th in voting according to HOH - you have him listed as 11th on his profile, so I assume this was an error.

lazy again, trying to go off the top of my head.

Quote:

Sullivan and Pettersson are about as good defensively as the center version of Billy Harris.

I would agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

I really don't see this supposed physical gap that 70s thinks he has on the 4th lines. I'd rate their toughness something like this:

Mckay
Boutette Patey/Tucker
Grier Tippett

I agree McKay is 1st. But I don't see how it's possible to place the next three as anything but Regina players. A couple little quotes about Patey (one by Patey himself) doesn't put him above Grier, or on Tucker's level. We all saw Tucker, there is no doubt he was a fearless little fireball. Grier was called Grier is a hockey player in a football player's body. He is an aggressive forechecker and bores in on the unfortunate puck carrier with all of the intensity of a lineman blitzing a quarterback... frightens a lot of people into mistakes... honest, tough, physical winger... A power forward... one of the premier cornerman in the league... won't hesitate to bull his way through two defenseman... intimidating physical presence... great strength and is almost impossible to knock down... Powerful winger with intimidating size and strength, he has impressive straightaway speed and can alter a game's momentum with his punishing hits... His size and strength along the boards is unparalleled... hard-hitting physical style... a veritable force along the boards ... - Patey is none of the above.

As for Grier's defense - read his profile. He was consistently called an excellent defensive forward, and for a few years was on a line that the reports called one of the NHL's best shutdown trios (it was there for a few years but I don't repeat anything in bios that is exact words repeated from one edition to the next) - He certainly didn't have the team success that McKay had, but much more than the average player he has had a knack for advancing in the playoffs. McKay peaked at 9th in selke voting, Grier was 14th once. You said there's not much difference there, right? I don't keep detailed records past 15th, but I know Grier got votes in four other seasons. What about McKay? Also, as a Devils fan you know more about him than others would, but the potential for bias also exists. I would like to look at my scouting reports to see what is mentioned of his defensive play (i.e. how often is it mentioned, what superlatives are used, how does that compare to Grier) before coming to any definite conclusion, but my suspicion is that the big defensive edge you claim for McKay is either not real, or not that big.

Quote:

And who says a team's "agitator" has to be a forward:

McKay, Patey, and Butcher. You were critical of the Butcher pick before, but now you see why we selected him - he performs the role you are asking for here.

If you want to say that Butcher is your agitator, fair enough. he is the worst defenseman in the series by a country mile so if he has to be out there for that, good for me. That doesn't really answer the whole question though. I have a whole line that will forecheck like demons and drive your defensemen bonkers. there is a long history of unsung energy lines like this making very appreciated contributions to winning teams with their momentum-changing, bang and crash style. Eden Hall's version is simply not as effective at this kind of game.

Quote:

Honestly, it's not like Grier was some kind of physical beast.

Absolutely he was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

Do you actually think you've shown anything to indicate that Gibbs was better defensively at even strength than Brian Campbell?

Come on. Gibbs' reputation for a decade was that he was a defensive defenseman. Campbell started off as a fringe NHLer for 4 years (and it wasn't his offensive skills that made him a fringe player), and since then has ranged from excellent specialist to good support player to top-10 d-man, but has never been considered better than below average defensively.

Quote:

Where he places in the league isn't the full issue, when the NHL of the 70s was much weaker than it is today. I think it's very plausible that a poor #1 in a 14 team league was about the 25th best player in the league. Then consider all the talent in Europe (mostly the USSR and CSSR but also Sweden) and the WHA (Al Hamilton, Paul Shmyr, Rick Ley, JC Tremblay, etc etc) and yes, I think it's very plausible that a poor #1 could be no better than the 40th best defenseman in the world.

I know the NHL was watered down. I think that I've been very accomodating so far by acknowledging that "doubling" the finishes for the 70s to make it more comparable to modern times, is fair. I feel the above is trying to get away with some "double dipping" now. Anyway, we have something to work with here.

So we finally have a number. Let's say I agree that Gibbs was 40th-50th in the world in the three years when he was a "poor #1" (the years you placed in the #6 tier) and incrementally better when he was more than that. Doubling that would make him 80th-100th in his 8th, 9th, and 10th-best seasons. That is still a #3 defenseman in modern times.

what about the #5 tier? 35th, perhaps? So 70th today. A good #3.

how about the seasons in tier 4? 25th-30th, maybe. or 50th-60th today. A #2. (these might be the key to the answer though because if he was 11th-13th in his two best years then 25th-30th is probably underrating him in his 3rd-5th-best.

then there are the seasons in tier 2, where we have reasonable data to suggest he was 11th-13th, or 22nd-26th by moden standards, a clearcut below-average #1.

So, if Gibbs' best 9 years were the last 9 years, we could imagine him being a legit #1 twice, a #2 three times, and a #3 four times. I realize and agree Campbell has two seasons better than Gibbs ever had. But put another way, that's four more seasons as a top-3 guy than Campbell had. and three more as a top-2 guy.

of course, not all of Campbell's #3 seasons are sorted out and to compare apples to apples we'd have to come to a semi-agreement about where he ranked in each of the last six seasons.

Come on, you have to admit this doesn't look very bad for Gibbs, at all.

Funny, because I remember not too long ago, you thought that seventieslord had "proved" that Ramsay was better defensively than Gainey, despite Gainey's vastly superior Selke record...

So something must have changed since then, right?

Christ, I just love how whenever someone pops what they believe to be a "gotcha" question, "the usual suspects" are right there to dogpile on me before I've even had a chance to address it. Bravo.

Anyway, I'm not interested in this right now but here's my answer: This is not even close to the same thing. The selke existed for 57% of Ramsay's career and 75% of Gainey's. Gainey was not named on over 4X as many ballots in his career (as Erixon was compared to Tippett) - by my estimation, he was named on approximately 10% more ballots, with more years to do so. It's actually easily arguable that Gainey's wins notwithstanding, Ramsay's voting record is the more impressive one, and I've argued that before. If that argument isn't bought, the massive difference in market recognition between MTL and BUF can explain the rest away. (don't try to say NY/HFD is anything similar please!) in addition, the available defensive stats we have support Ramsay, especially when teammates/linemates are considered.

I really don't want to mention Gainey or Ramsay again in this thread. Just know that comparing them based on selke ballots is nothing like comparing Erixon and Tippett the same way.

I stated the actual numbers... 57% is "around half" and 75% is "most" so what is wrong with jarek's facts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

I don't think Ehrhoff is a top 10 defenseman in the NHL. But more writers thought he had a top 10 season than did for Sargent...

I know what you're trying to do - you're trying to say "look everyone, TDMM thinks Ehrhoff is a top 10 defenseman, isn't that crazy?" This is, of course a smoke screen that obscures the facts that:

-you don't have to be a top 10 defenseman to have a top 10 season
-more writers thought Ehrhoff had a top season than thought Sargent did

Ehrhoff doesn't have to be a top 10 defenseman to be better than Sargent.

Lot's of nitpicking the flaws of modern players while ignoring the flaws of older players in this thread.

I think you're really misrepresenting me here. You don't know, and neither do I, how many writers thought Sargent or Ehrhoff had a top-10 season, because their ballots were just 3-5 votes long! We know that in their three combined singificant seasons of voting, a combined five voters thought they had top-3 seasons - and we both know that is not true!

sorry, but this response was unnecessarily short and dismissive. Read that section again. There is lots there and you jumped on it too fast.

There's too much "competitor" being thrown my way and not nearly enough "working together to find the answers"...

The Selke trophy started in the 77-78 season.. Ramsay's career started in 71-72. He had been a regular player putting up significant seasons since 72-73. Surely he would have gotten significant Selke consideration since at least then.

that sounds a bit like just glossing over the fact that some coaches are better and worse at one special team or the other.

games are still won at ES... roughly 80% of the game is played at ES.

Julien as great at the PK and Muckler on the PP, happy? Many teams have an assistant coach run one or both special teams.

So what special teams are Bun Cook good at?

ES is most important, but special teams are certainly important as well, especially in the playoffs. Maybe a quick refresher of what these votes mean is appropriate.

Quote:

I agree McKay is 1st. But I don't see how it's possible to place the next three as anything but Regina players. A couple little quotes about Patey (one by Patey himself) doesn't put him above Grier, or on Tucker's level. We all saw Tucker, there is no doubt he was a fearless little fireball. Grier was called Grier is a hockey player in a football player's body. He is an aggressive forechecker and bores in on the unfortunate puck carrier with all of the intensity of a lineman blitzing a quarterback... frightens a lot of people into mistakes... honest, tough, physical winger... A power forward... one of the premier cornerman in the league... won't hesitate to bull his way through two defenseman... intimidating physical presence... great strength and is almost impossible to knock down... Powerful winger with intimidating size and strength, he has impressive straightaway speed and can alter a game's momentum with his punishing hits... His size and strength along the boards is unparalleled... hard-hitting physical style... a veritable force along the boards ... - Patey is none of the above.

I'm not going to get in one of these stupid quote wars, where the GM who finds the most quotes that say the exact same thing wins.

I stand by the fact that Patey was at least as tough as Tucker. Much of Tucker's "toughness" came from cheap-shotting guys when the refs weren't looking, then he'd hide behind the refs or turtle when challenged. It's why he was an effective agitator, but it doesn't make him tougher than Patey. The dude is 5'10, 178 pounds FFS.

Maybe I underestimated Grier. He was much physically stronger than the likes of Tucker. I ranked him so low based on "intimidation factor" but maybe that wasn't accurate.

Quote:

McKay peaked at 9th in selke voting, Grier was 14th once. You said there's not much difference there, right? I don't keep detailed records past 15th, but I know Grier got votes in four other seasons. What about McKay?

If you want to say that Butcher is your agitator, fair enough. he is the worst defenseman in the series by a country mile so if he has to be out there for that, good for me.

What makes Gibbs that much better than Butcher?

At one point, I told vecens that the only right handed defensemen available from MLD2010 were Butcher, Gibbs, and Krupp. I preferred Krupp, but vecens wasn't impressed and he was drafted first anyway. I honestly couldn't tell which of Gibbs and Butcher was better. Now that I compare profiles, I think Gibbs was probably a little better than Butcher, but I doubt it was by that much.

I can definitely tell you one thing - I would much rather have Butcher as a #6 than Gibbs as a #4.

Quote:

That doesn't really answer the whole question though. I have a whole line that will forecheck like demons and drive your defensemen bonkers. there is a long history of unsung energy lines like this making very appreciated contributions to winning teams with their momentum-changing, bang and crash style. Eden Hall's version is simply not as effective at this kind of game.

Correct. Your 4th line is built to be bang and crash line that is also competent defensively, Eden Hall's 4th line is built to be pure shutdown line that is also quite effective at a bang and crash game.

Seriously though, how many Cup winning teams had 4th lines that were pure bang and crash lines? The Detroit Red Wings had Maltby-Draper-McCarthy, which is actually a very similar makeup to Tippett-Patey-McKay. That's what our line is modeled after.

Quote:

Come on. Gibbs' reputation for a decade was that he was a defensive defenseman. Campbell started off as a fringe NHLer for 4 years (and it wasn't his offensive skills that made him a fringe player), and since then has ranged from excellent specialist to good support player to top-10 d-man, but has never been considered better than below average defensively.

I think in Campbell's best years, he was considered average defensively, at least by NHL standards. Obviously, he is below average defensively by MLD standards.

I see one quote that is full of hyperbole "impossible to beat one on one" about Gibbs' defensive play in his profile. Most of the quotes are about his offense (which is way below Campbell's statistically) and toughness.

I'll retract the statement somewhat in that Gibbs was known for defensive play, but I still don't think he's been shown to be anything noteworthy at reducing goals against. Campbell is excellent at skating the puck out of trouble, which helps a team's goals against quite a bit, even if he's not that great when the other team has the puck. We saw in the 2010 playoffs what an asset that is.

Well, I think Al Hamilton was better than Gibbs. As for the Swedes, Salming didn't come over until 73-74 when he was 22 years old and may very well have been better than Gibbs when still in Sweden. Hard to tell.

Quote:

...
Come on, you have to admit this doesn't look very bad for Gibbs, at all.

I don't think Gibbs is bad at all. But he's definitely the worst player in either team's top 4 by a solid margin. Garth Butcher is the worst overall defenseman (though please indulge me and tell me why he's so much worse than Gibbs). Someone has to be the worst, even if he's pretty good too.

There's too much "competitor" being thrown my way and not nearly enough "working together to find the answers"...

I guess I'm just not taking kindly to nitpicking of the flaws of modern players/coaches (Campbell, Ehrhoff, Julien) while glossing over the flaws of older players. I realize that it's more Jarek doing it than you, but you're not exactly avoiding piling on.

Perhaps I'll try to formulate a more detailed response to the long discussion later, but basically I agree with you.

I don't consider 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th in voting to actually mean someone was the 6th, etc, best defenseman that season.

I honestly don't know how seriously writers take votes after the first two places - I know a lot of them just throw their 3rd place, (or 4th or 5th) place votes to a guy they like who they feel deserves to be recognized. And that's fine.

I think the lower Norris point totals are a good estimate of guys who writers thought deserved some kind of recognition in those seasons. I certainly don't think Ehrhoff's limited recognition for the last two seasons is out of line with historical trends.

The Selke trophy started in the 77-78 season.. Ramsay's career started in 71-72. He had been a regular player putting up significant seasons since 72-73. Surely he would have gotten significant Selke consideration since at least then.

Oh so now instead of half his career we're talking two seasons where he could have taken a run at the award before Gainey was hitting his stride?

Oh so now instead of half his career we're talking two seasons where he could have taken a run at the award before Gainey was hitting his stride?

I love how you assume that he only had a shot in a league without Gainey in it.

Ramsay had incredible defensive stats right from the very beginning in 1971-72. If the selke existed, he could have been a contender from 73-onwards, as I assume a rookie would not generate enough hype, and there is hype involved in this award. Gainey, from what I have seen, did not distinguish himself defensively in the 74 or 75 seasons, and it was his performance in 76 and 77 that brought about the fabled "let's create an award just for him" hype. what's never mentioned, though, is that Ramsay was outstanding in those seasons, too. Honestly, the guy might have had a 10-year stretch in the top-3 in voting.

In my estimation, based on actual ballots and voting points where ballots are not available - Gainey showed up on 270 ballots in 12 seasons; Ramsay showed up on 245 in 8 seasons. I'm not pushing anything outlandish here.

Can you take any future replies to the chat thread, please? jarek too.

Julien as great at the PK and Muckler on the PP, happy? Many teams have an assistant coach run one or both special teams.

So what special teams are Bun Cook good at?

You know I can't answer that with anything better than "I assume he was pretty good at both if his teams kept winning championships like it was going out of style".

Quote:

I'm not going to get in one of these stupid quote wars, where the GM who finds the most quotes that say the exact same thing wins.

It's not a "stupid quote war", a lot of times things change throughout their careers and you can track it in the reports. think back to Turgeon, or Rick Green, or Mike Bullard, or Mark Messier. With Grier, we have a 15-year established track record of being a pretty formidable physical force (backed up by nearly a career's worth of hit stats as well). I don't really need to hammer this home, as you've admitted it now.

Quote:

I stand by the fact that Patey was at least as tough as Tucker. Much of Tucker's "toughness" came from cheap-shotting guys when the refs weren't looking, then he'd hide behind the refs or turtle when challenged. It's why he was an effective agitator, but it doesn't make him tougher than Patey. The dude is 5'10, 178 pounds FFS.

(this is where BC coming in here to be the Fox News to jarek's MSNBC could actually be beneficial to me for a change, haha)

Tucker didn't just turtle! Even though he lost a lot, the dude fought 101 times against opponents that averaged 6'1", 203. He was a great and frequent bodychecker who absolutely leveled some guys, both in open ice and against the boards. he often reminded me of Peca with his bodychecking. There were definitely some cheap shots here and there... it's part of the package. The guy was all heart.

We all saw this and we all know this. The info on Patey is very sparse right now. If he was in Tucker's class for intangibles it wouldn't be too hard to find some stuff in google news, because Tucker is literally all over the place - the guy made headlines with the way he played.

If it's legitimate for you to ask me how Bun Cook will run a PP, then it's legitimate for me to ask you for some more quotes about Larry Patey's physicality/toughness, that aren't from Larry Patey himself.

The other thing I thought of was that McKay was often, if not always, the 3rd-best defensive player on his own line. The success of his line was less his doing than the other players, generally. On the other hand, considering he is clearly the 3rd-best defensive player on your line, I probably can't hold that against him, can I?

Quote:

What makes Gibbs that much better than Butcher?

At one point, I told vecens that the only right handed defensemen available from MLD2010 were Butcher, Gibbs, and Krupp. I preferred Krupp, but vecens wasn't impressed and he was drafted first anyway. I honestly couldn't tell which of Gibbs and Butcher was better. Now that I compare profiles, I think Gibbs was probably a little better than Butcher, but I doubt it was by that much.

I can definitely tell you one thing - I would much rather have Butcher as a #6 than Gibbs as a #4.

hmm, sounds like you really think Gibbs is our #6.

Butcher was never more than a slightly above-average player aside from a couple of years. He made the ASG but surely you don't believe that is an indication of being top-12 in the league or anything, right?

you sure don't sound impressed at being the #1 on a bad team, what about being the #3 or 4 on a bad team?

1983: #7 on a .469 team
1984: #8 on a .456 team (received #7 minutes when playing but split time in the minors, unlike the actual #7, who didn't)
1985: #5 on a .369 team
1986: #6 on a .369 team (5.5, as Bubla played just half a year)
1987: #4 on a .413 team
1988: #3.5 on a .369 team (thanks to Huber's half season in VAN)
1989: #3 on a .463 team
1990: #3 on a .400 team
1991: #2.5 on a .406 team (Kurvers half year)
1992: #3 on a .519 team (this is his highlight, 11 seasons in)
1993: #2.5 on a .506 team (Norwood half season)
1994: season split almost evenly between #3 on a .542 team and #3 on a .452 team
1995: #5 on a .521 team

how would one spin that to say Butcher is close to Gibbs at all?

Quote:

Correct. Your 4th line is built to be bang and crash line that is also competent defensively, Eden Hall's 4th line is built to be pure shutdown line that is also quite effective at a bang and crash game.

Seriously though, how many Cup winning teams had 4th lines that were pure bang and crash lines? The Detroit Red Wings had Maltby-Draper-McCarthy, which is actually a very similar makeup to Tippett-Patey-McKay. That's what our line is modeled after.

Are you kidding? That line is ALL bang and crash and grind. It's a classic. Your line does not have that kind of spunk.

Quote:

Well, I think Al Hamilton was better than Gibbs. As for the Swedes, Salming didn't come over until 73-74 when he was 22 years old and may very well have been better than Gibbs when still in Sweden. Hard to tell.

It's almost certain that Salming was better, yes. because he was instantly better in 1974. I was more wondering about the rest of the 70s, though.

Hamilton? He was a #6 for NY in 1970 and then #1 for a pisspoor Buffalo team in 1971, then a #3 for the same team in 1972 when two better players came in. (and they were still poor). Fast forward to 1980 when he returned, and he was just the #4 of an Edmonton team that was well below .500.

Good offensive record in the WHA, but I see little other than a 1978 1st all-star team to suggest he could have anchored even an average NHL team's blueline for even one season.

Maltby was grittier than Tippett, but Draper was no grittier than Patey. Perhaps a better comparison would be the Jay Pandolfo-John Madden-Turner Stevenson 4th line the Devils used to great effect for a bit.

Quote:

We all saw this and we all know this. The info on Patey is very sparse right now. If he was in Tucker's class for intangibles it wouldn't be too hard to find some stuff in google news, because Tucker is literally all over the place - the guy made headlines with the way he played.

Seriously? Tucker made headlines for the same reason Matt Cooke did - everyone hated the POS.

You really think a twerp like Tucker would scare guys like Jack Evans, Walt Buswell, and Garth Butcher?

As for Larry Patey:

He was 6'1 in the 1970s and 80s

One teammate raved about how tough he was to play against in practice

Another teammate said he was so physically strong, he was impossible to knock over

I understand that Tucker has all that agitator cred, but that's only one type of toughness.

Here's one additional source I found on Patey. It's from junior hockey, so I'm not sure how it translates. I don't have time for an extensive archive search right now:

Quote:

Rookies xxx, xxx, xxx, and Larry Patey all know how to use their strength as an intimidating factor on this ice.

The other thing I thought of was that McKay was often, if not always, the 3rd-best defensive player on his own line. The success of his line was less his doing than the other players, generally. On the other hand, considering he is clearly the 3rd-best defensive player on your line, I probably can't hold that against him, can I?

This is not entirely accurate - McKay was often the second best defensive member on his line after Bobby Holik (the center and a regular 3rd liner in the main draft). I don't remember every line combo the Devils had, but the left wings those guys had were usually solid but unspectacular guys like Sergei Brylin and Sergei Nemchinov. Madden was only their LW for one series.

Quote:

hmm, sounds like you really think Gibbs is our #6.

I think Sargent is probably slightly worse than Gibbs. Sargent peaked higher, but he played so few seasons before the injuries hit, I'd lean towards Gibbs. I think Kampman is better than both, but he doesn't have the right skillset to play with another defense-only guy in Portland - Regina wouldn't be able to get the puck out of their zone.

Quote:

Butcher was never more than a slightly above-average player aside from a couple of years. He made the ASG but surely you don't believe that is an indication of being top-12 in the league or anything, right?

I'll get back to Butcher later. Do your files have his ice times or just rankings?

Yeah I'm sorry, there's no way that Matt Cooke isn't a more valuable piece than Tucker. Even if you think about it Tucker outside of Toronto has been largely forgotten. Matt Cooke was a valuable member of a Cup winning team who was much more infamous and to be honest much better for this role than Tucker ever was.